|
On Coaching, Replay, and Common Sense |
|
|
|
|
|
Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
As much as I love talking about the art of officiating -- and there is as much art as there is science to this profession -- I get a headache when I see coachable issues pop up over and over again in the National Hockey League but which go uncorrected out of sheer stubbornness.
Likewise, every time the subject of poorly written NHL Rules comes up-- with goaltender interference (Rule 69) being the murkiest with the most permutations and the most clumsily worded guidance offered toward getting right with greater consistency-- I wring my hands.
For good reason, I've written more blogs about goaltender interference than any other rule. First of all, folks will forgive and forget a missed hooking penalty in the neutral zone a hell of a lot sooner than a missed goal/ no goal call.
Secondly, the root purpose of the goalie interference rule is supposed to be a simple one, rather than one bogged down in minutiae: was a goaltender impeded by physical contact or by other direct actions (apart from a legally set screen) of an opponent from having a reasonable chance at moving within the crease to make a save? If the answer is no, there really should not be a whole lot of hairs split over the many different types of incidental contact that can occur.
What we really need to do is get hockey people -- league hockey ops, the players' association and officials -- together to rethink the standards. My view is that goals are hard enough to score in this sport and goalies are sufficiently protected that we should not have so many ticky-tack washout and reversals of what logically should be good goals. I'm not talking about situations where a goalie is clearly impeded. I'm talking about situations where the judgment call is whether the soup is a tad salty or just right, which is what we often end up.
Next, I am dismayed by the ever-increasing emergence of a "just make a call and we'll fix it in replay" mentality. Last year, an ill-considered coach's challenge system was introduced--- and which very predictably showed itself to be flawed in its design, execution and the on-ice technology of the tablets used to make potential game-altering rulings -- but the powers-that-be have apparently decided is just fine and dandy even as more hairs get split, longer and longer delays ensue and, most importantly, too many incorrect verdicts are reached. And, no the answer is not just to shift more replays to the Chinese food takeout eating crew in the "situation room" in Toronto; rather, it's to rethink the entire replay and challenge system.
Getting back to my original point, I see way too many situations where there are glaring flaws in the way officials get coached (on their positioning, in clarity of communications, in player safety and personal safety matters, and more), the case book vs. Rule book contradictions that arise more frequently than even most non-officials within the NHL hockey world even realize.
Readers frequently ask me to weigh in on particular rules and specific incidents within a game. In many cases, better positioning and communication by the officials -- coachable areas, whereas innate feel for the game is something you cannot impart to someone who lacks it -- would help immensely. In the bigger picture, greater fundamental insight into why certain rules exist in the first place (in a nutshell, keeping the game fair for both teams, and keeping it as safe as possible while understanding that it's also a fast-paced contact sport with emotions running high) is crucial.
To be effective, officials need to know more than the technical aspects of the Rule Book. They have to be able to innately take the pulse and temperature of a game. For example, sometimes simply standing back and letting a fight play itself out -- rather than rushing in to intercede-- is the best way to let a game calm itself down. As a ref, I think (and many players have told me) that one of my biggest strengths was to know when to say "stand back and let them go" and when to say "you can either be seated on the bench, the penalty box or back in the locker room; it's your choice."
To me, the art and psychology of officiating is what is fun to discuss in practical terms. I also love to coach and offer pointers for greater success, and talking about the history and rationale of the rule book. The politics, bureaucracy and ill-considered practices that negatively affect our sport at its highest level are wihat gives me a headache. If only this blog was sponsored by a pain reliever company, I could wrap this up with a plug for our friends at Advil or Bayer or Tylenol.
************
Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.
Today, Stewart serves as director of hockey officiating for the ECAC.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»